tives of the groups supporting the law. This was organized into the American Pure Food League. I was president of it. They asked me to continue, but I urged that someone who does not get, directly or indirectly, any income from the food industries, be selected.

But I was interested in the exhibit which the league made under the executive secretary, Miss Alice Lakey, at the Women's Exposition at the Hotel Astor, New York City, September 1933, of the misbranded drugs and cosmetics and misleading advertising, prepared by the Food and Drug Administration and the Department of Agricul

ture.

I checked into this exhibit on several evenings, watched it from the side lines. As secretary of the National Association of Officials and of the International Pure Food Congress, I organized the exhibit of adulterated foods and drugs which was made in the Hall of Agriculture at the St. Louis World's Fair. Mark Sullivan, in his second volume of Our Times, says that this exhibit was

The most effective bit of propaganda ever made for pure food or any other

cause.

Benjamin R. Hart, a graduate of Kentucky State College, and one of our assistants in the pure-food work, and S. L. Darling, were selected to manage this St. Louis exhibit.

Hart stayed with us for part of the summer. Being at the exhibit got him a job as chemist for the city health department of St. Louis. Another assistant was taken by one of the large firms for their food exhibit in the department.

Sol Darling finished the summer with me. When the exhibit was packed up and we were looking at the bare walls and boxed exhibits throughout the rest of the Agricultural Building, Darling turned to me and said:

We have kindled a fire of public interest in pure food which no power on earth will ever put out.

But the interest in that exhibit was small compared with the overwhelming, unanimous interest of the women who crowded in to Miss Lakey's booth at the Hotel Astor and all of whom were eager to register under a petition to Congress to pass this bill. And they were very representative women.

I made up my mind in connection with our exhibit at the Century of Progress to find out what the people are thinking about and what they want to know about foods.

Our staff talked personally to over 800,000, with a very large registration from those who wanted the feeding tests conducted at the exhibit and other facts about vitamins and nutrition, sent. I observed this crowd day after day while at the fair. I spent many evenings myself at the rail.

The demonstration shows that the people are hungry for the truth about foods and that they distrust all forms of advertising.

I spent many evenings myself at the rail talking to this and that group. The pure food laws and needed amendments, including this bill, were discussed with them. The committee can take it that the people are unanimous for the bill and that the only opposition comes from those who either do not understand it or who cannot remain in

business when the labels and advertising are compelled to state the complete truth.

Beginning in 1903 with the American Federation of Women's Clubs, American public sentiment was organized behind the McCumber-Hayburn-Hepburn-Mann bill in a way which enabled its leaders to carry it through the votes of the Senate and the House into the Federal statute.

A very much larger tidal wave of public sentiment can be put behind this bill. But is it necessary to do it? Should those who fought at much personal sacrifice, and practically out of funds from their own limited salaries as pure food officials, be again put up against having to go to the public about this bill? Should the big majority of honest food and drug manufacturers, who now put out honestly labeled and honestly advertised products, be subjected to that Nation-wide agitation which cannot but disturb public confidence in advertising? In the June 26, 1931, issue of the journal, "Insurance" I stated: In Kentucky we watched milk during summer months. Inspectors, with helpful suggestions, stayed at the dairy until too late to see; bacteriologists left their laboratories only long enough to sleep. Charts, where vital statistics were available, were watched as closely as some watch the ticker tape during a market flurry. The death rate among babies had been lowered; first by a third, then one half and still lower. No compensation in honor or money can equal the satisfaction. Only two others know, the mother and doctor.

I also said in that article:

The vitamin and other discoveries in nutrition have thrown more light and given sure direction to the work. In the facts reported by Osborne and Mendel, McCollum and Davis, Sherman and the several other hundred men and women in their field, out of the facts supplied from the dietitians and investigators in home economics, and in coming from medical centers, there is enough known to build the coming generation into a race of giants, to prevent a substantial part of every day common ills and to lengthen the youth and life span much farther than has been known.

Advertising which is filled with facts is the biggest, fullest, everyday way to carry this benefit into the everyday lives of men, women and children. But to do it, advertising must be the kind of advertising which tells the truth and the whole truth. And when the advertising agencies see this and do it, they will have opened up a new field which has far more copy space awaiting them than the field around which too many of them have constructed an imaginative halo, many of the acnodes of which never touch the everyday needs in human nutrition and human health.

STATEMENT OF W. PARKER JONES, WASHINGTON, D.C., GENERAL COUNSEL FOR NATIONAL CONFECTIONERS' ASSOCIATION

The National Confectioners' Association of the' United States is in full sympathy with the objects sought to be accomplished by this proposed legislation, but suggests for your consideration that the bill as introduced may work undue hardship upon the confectionery industry and requires amendment.

By section 7 (f), confectionery becomes misbranded "If it purports to be or is represented as a food for which no definition of identity has been prescribed by regulations as hereinafter provided, and its label fails to bear (1) the common or usual name of the food, if any there be,

and (2) the common or usual name of each ingredient thereof in order of predominance by weight, except that spices, flavors, and artificial color may be designated as such without naming each spice, flavor, or artificial color.

Although definitions under the present act have been established by the Secretary of Agriculture for a variety of foods, no definitions have been fixed for confectionery. It may fairly be assumed that the reason for the omission is that there are more than a thousand different types of confectionery with a variety of ingredients in varying proportions. Any definition of confectionery as a class would necessarily be so broad as to be meaningless, and definitions of so great a number of different types appear to be impracticable.

The general provisions of the bill prohibiting false or deceptive labeling are believed to be adequate to preclude misrepresentation, and the provisions governing adulteration should be sufficient to prevent the use of any unwholesome ingredients, but the requirements of section 7 (f), that where no definitions have been established, the ingredients be named in the order of predominance by weight, would impose a great burden upon the confectionery industry without any benefit to consumers.

There are some few types of confectionery for which definitions are needed, such as chocolate-coated candies, marshallows, nougats, caramel, and jellies, but confectioners are continuously engaged in developing new pieces.

Consider a typical 5-cent bar composed of a fudge center, dipped in caramel, rolled in toasted peanuts and then chocolate coated. It can be covered by a definition for fudge, a definition for peanuts, a definition for caramels, and a definition for chocolate. But to what definition must this finished confection conform? Plenty of latitude must be had in the calculation of component parts in their order of magnitude.

The statement made for the complex composition of the novelty type confection will also apply to a nougat in which nuts, gum drops and, perhaps, a small quantity of fruit has been added. If this is dipped in chocolate and then rolled in toasted coconut, under what classification will it fall? The job of calculating raw materials in their order of magnitude in such a confection will not be an easy one and the purpose solved by such a calculation is not quite clear even though the results are included on the label.

Example after example can be cited where it will be almost impossible to state the quantity of materials in a confection in their order of magnitude. Slight variations will occur from day to day and even though the same quantity of materials are weighed into the cooking kettle, changes take place during the process which are not always comparable. To state further examples would only serve for emphasis.

An

In general, the definition of mixed confections is impossible. assortment is rarely uniform, nor is it indicated that it should be, unless it is the intent of the proposed bill to prohibit the sale of new and novel mixtures.

Information required on the top of a package containing an assortment not covered by definitions will be so lengthy, so bunglesome, and

so meaningless that any attempt to convey it will be absurd. This example has been referred to by many proponents of the bill as being an extreme case. In reality, it is an ordinary case, which can be proved by examining any of the mixtures, assortments, or selections to be purchased in the many retail shops. No doubt this contention will be answered with a promise that definitions and standards will be set. This, in itself, does not solve the dilemma. Let us suppose that all existing confections have been standardized. When a new, novel, and attractive product is manufactured, it will be necessary for the manufacturer to state materials used in their order of predominance by weight until a definition has been approved. This in turn will convey sufficient knowledge for a competitor to duplicate and offer a product in competition, which is admittedly unfair.

Confectionery should be exempted from the requirements of section

7 (f).

Under section 3 (a) (4), confectionery becomes adulterated "If any substance has been mixed or packed therewith so as to increase its bulk or weight, or reduce its quality or strength or create a deceptive appearance. Much has been made of this statement, and in the "chamber of horrors" exhibited by the Food and Drug Administration, ice-cream dummies have been constructed showing relative sizes, along with figures which state the percentage of air contained. It seems that this is considered to be a gross act of adulteration. When a confectioner adds frappe to a fondant, he is doing the same thing. He is increasing its volume and making a finished weight appear to be larger than it would be if no frappe had been incorporated. When confectioners beat marshmallow, finishing with a weight of approximately 32 to 4 pounds per gallon, they obtain results again comparable to those set forth as deceptive in the case of other products, but is it deceptive to produce and sell marshmallow? If this constitutes adulteration, the beaters now in use in every plant will have to be scrapped. In addition, it will become necessary to set a definite specific gravity at which all confections must be finished, in order that all volumes will be comparable in weight. This, of course, is

absurd.

Under section 13, "Factory Inspection", it is provided that in order to regulate adequately interstate commerce in food and enforce provisions of the act, officers or employees, duly designated by the Secretary, after first obtaining permission of the owner, operator, or custodian, are authorized to enter any factory, warehouse, or establishment in which foods are manufactured, processed, packed, or held for shipment in interstate commerce or are held after such shipment or to enter any vehicle being used to transport such food in interstate commerce. If the owner, operator, or custodian has denied to officers or employees, duly designated by the Secretary, permission to enter and inspect the factory, warehouse, establishment, or vehicle and equipment, methods, processes, finished and unfinished materials, containers, and labels, there used or stored, the several district courts of the United States are vested with jurisdiction to restrain by injunction, temporary or permanent, the shipment in interstate commerce or delivery of products which have been manufactured. This may constitute a hardship to both manufacturer and duly designated employee of the Secretary alike.

If there was nothing to be lost by inspection, no possible objection could be raised to the presence of inspectors at any time in the plant of a specialty food manufacturer.

This, unfortunately, does not follow and in some cases such permission can be harmful. If the inspector or duly designated employee is certain to continue in such capacity for an indefinite period of time, then secret processes may be protected. On the other hand, if an inspector or duly designated employee elects to leave the service at an early future date, his memory may serve him in good stead. Processes with which he has become familiar by virtue of the discharge of his official duties can be utilized unfairly in competing with the very manufacturer whom he has inspected. It must be remembered that time and money are expended by progressive manufacturers in establishing plant practices, developing equipment, and producing goods which are individual in nature. These cannot be covered always by patent, even when desired, and it is submitted that a manufacturer has an equal right to protect information obtained as a result of research, whether it be by letters patent or secret process.

It is recited in section 14 that in order that the act may be enforced, carriers, subject to the Interstate Commerce Act, as amended (U.S.C., title 49), and other carriers engaged in interstate commerce and persons receiving food in interstate commerce shall, upon request of an officer or employee duly designated by the Secretary, permit an officer or employee to have access and to copy all records showing the movement in interstate commerce of any food and the nature, kind, quantity, shipper, and consignee thereof, and it shall be unlawful for any such carrier or person to fail to permit such access to and copying of any record so requested; provided that evidence obtained under this section shall not be used in a criminal prosecution of the person from whom obtained. This provision is fair only if such records are kept in strict confidence. It can be turned into an invasion of the rights of private manufacturers and produce a leak which may be detrimental in so far as competition is concerned.

Section 21 of the proposed bill confers upon the Secretary of Agriculture the right to disseminate such information concerning any food as he may deem necessary in the interests of the public health and for the protection of the consumer against fraud. The power of the Secretary to disseminate information concerning any food should be limited to disseminating information concerning judgments of the courts.

Section 24, the provision conferring a right of action for damages upon any person for injury or death proximately caused by a violation of the proposed bill apparently creates no right which does not now exist. If construed to create a new right of action, the provision is out of place in this bill and should be omitted.

That part of section I of the present Food and Drugs Act which exempted exported wholesome foods from its labeling requirements, provided the foods contain no substance prohibited by the laws of the foreign country to which the foods are exported has no counterpart in Senate bill 1944. Exporters of confectionery should have the right to export confectionery which conforms to the laws of foreign countries free from restrictions imposed upon confectionery sold for domestic consumption, but not imposed by foreign countries upon confectionery manufactured or sold there for home consumption.